7 posts from December 2016

December 31, 2016

Another year's honours are cleverly presented but the system is still, at best arbitrary, and at worse, potentially corrupt.

Sensitive to criticism that the honours system rewards cronies and party donors and is used as consolation prizes for political failures, the Honours PR machine highlights the un-sung heroes. There is universal satisfaction in rewarding good causes and selfless individuals who work hard for good causes. That is the best use for a national awards system. There is certainly no criticism of anyone accepting a gong that will bring in useful publicity to advance their causes. However it's impossible to reward all those that are worthy of recognition. Arbitrary unfair choices are inevitable.

A fascinating example of gong-rage came from the respected written Jon Ronson. His expletive-laced rage was unwisely blogged to an amazed multitude of surfers. Why does he covert a MBE? He has written great books that will be a proud unique brilliant legacy for him. 'Men who stare at goats'' apparently also stare enviously at men with medals. Why? Jon will be remembered for his wit and originality - not because a committee of dimwits put him on a list. Believe me, I have spoken to them and questioned them. They have medals themselves and have a vested interest in perpetuating a system based on privilege. Why respect decisions by those who gave SIR Phlip Green, SIR Jimmy Savile, SIR Cyril Smith, SIR Robert Mugabe, SIR Nicolas Ceaucescu, SIR George Castledaine, SIR Fred Goodwin & SIR James Crosby their honours?

Last year one of the Select Committees on which I sit looked at our honours system. My minority resport is still valid.

The Honours system is both a popular institution and also a dishonoured relic of the past that strengthens class divisions in British Society. It has honourable and dishonourable histories.

The beneficiaries of the major awards are the rich, the powerful and the famous. These are ceremonially bestowed by the Queen or Prince Charles. Minor lowly awards are handed unceremoniously by Lord Lieutenants to thousands of people of modest means and humble jobs. Great numbers of people doing splendid voluntary work or who contribute beyond the call of duty are ignored and un-rewarded. The limit of the total of awards is that there is a far greater proportion of aspirant BEMs that are disregarded than the aspirant knights.

The present architecture of the honours system institutionalises snobbery and privilege and cements class divisions. Those who are already over-privileged by wealth, birth, fame or fortune are further rewarded with titles and medals.

Knighthoods and peerages are freely distributed in abundance to the tax-avoiding comedians, overpaid bankers or dreary political time-servers. Dedicated charity workers who have inspired and innovated are less fortunate. Teachers, local authority workers, nurses or postmen appear amongst the awards with demeaning minor gongs. Michael Winner famously refused to accept an OBE because that was what he said should be offered to a 'toilet cleaner at King’s Cross Station'. His comment is accurate. The Honours are distributed, not of meritorious service, but on the ranking of the recipient in the social ladder of snobbery.

The dark history includes selling honours from the times of James 1 in 1611 to Lloyd George in the 1920s. Sales were understood by the public. They had a robust honesty. The rich paid for their baubles of vanity. The poor judged their worth by more reliable criteria. To reduce the deficit, a return to the historic precedent should be seriously considered. The vain-glorious should be allowed to contribute to the nation’s wealth. Vanity could be a rich source of finance for the nation’s coffers. This would cut out the middlemen of political parties who take the donations and distribute the gongs in exchange for the cash.

While there is reluctance to accept the full truth, honours are still bought by party donors. There is a transparently untrue pretence that merit is the main criterion for political honours. All major parties have cynically used the honours system to advance their agendas, to dispose of the troublesome, to silence the soothsayers or to reward their lobotomised loyalists. A knighthood is a convenient lollypop to persuade the bed-blockers to vacate their seats. Promotion to the Lords has been used to put the rebellious into places where they can do less harm.

Having served on the PASC committee in the last parliament investigating the Cash for Honours scandal, I concluded that the evidence pointed to a causal link between party donations and honours. Unfortunately the evidence that was available was insufficient to establish a formal public charge by the committee.

The Honours System 4142 The Honours System

In the 2012 New Year’s honours list there was well founded press derision on the obvious links between donations and knighthoods. A disgraced property tycoon and a hedge fund trader who cashed in on the credit crunch were both in the New Year Honours list.

Ex-convict Gerald Ronson – the great survivor of the Guinness share-trading scandal – was made a CBE. There was a knighthood for Tory donor Paul Ruddock, who has given more than £500,000 to party coffers since 2003.

His firm, Lansdowne Partners, made a staggering £100million from the financial crash by betting that the price of Northern Rock shares would fall and also made millions in a matter of days by predicting the likely slide of other banking shares. The wages of greed are handsome and partly paid in honours.

The automatic system of awards among the civil service and the military encourages deference. All will be rewarded in turn if they respect a system of unquestioning obedience to their immediate superiors. There are few rewards for the original thinkers, the pioneers or the innovators. The civil service ethos is based on the supremacy of subservience and the unimportance of being right. The present grey uninspired political and civil service mandarins prove that mediocrity dominates.

The monarch has influence over only a handful of gongs. The choices are exercised by the ludicrously un- representative Lord Lieutenants and the Honours Committees whose members are weighed down with their own surfeit of medals. The establishment is rewarding itself and reproducing itself in its own image. Lord Lieutenants are chosen from those who are free to do full time work without pay. They appoint groups of deputies from friends of similar rank and social standing. The elite have the power to reward the elite. If the public became aware of the self-serving freemasonry who preside over the distribution of honours they would be rightly angered by the patronising cheat of a fundamentally unfair system.

The present Honours System fosters and strengthens a society of ossified class barriers and endemic drabness.

At various times from 1611 to 1920s honours have been sold to fill the nation's treasury. The creation of the Order of the British Empire in 1917 reflected the jingoism of a county at war. The Empire celebrated no longer exists. Its legacy is a mixed one. It includes the creation of practical and progressive institutions and major injustices where local population were oppressed and mis-used. For many people of ethnic minority origins the word 'Empire' is tarnished. It would be sensible to replace 'Empire' with 'Excellence' as recommended by a previous PASC committee.

The suggestion by one witness that the award should be renamed the British Citizen’s Medal would be acceptable to subjects and citizens.

John Major and Tony Blair attempted to detoxify the class based system by spreading awards beyond their traditional dominance by the military and civil servants. These were progressive uses of Prime Ministerial directives. David Cameron's plans to use awards to shore up his controversial ’Big Society' policy, described as 'aspirational waffle' by the Archbishop of Canterbury, is less defensible. He also wishes to further reward philanthropists who fill funding gaps resulting from Government 'Big Society' cuts. These changes are likely to distort priorities in favour of those seeking prime ministerial approval, political advancement or philanthropists who make a public show of their generosity. David Cameron's present use of honours to advance party political ends or policies of questionable value is novel in recent times. It will further politicise the honours system and the unpopularity of the ‘Big Society’ will plunge the honours into disrepute. This is a new abuse of the honours system.

1

Much evidence was heard of the pleasure enjoyed by the recipients of honours. We hear nothing about those whose nominations are repeatedly and mysteriously rejected. They suffer the pangs of perplexed disappointment. Often aspirant candidates are baffled when honours are given to those whose achievements are indistinguishable from those achieved by thousands of their colleagues.

Greater transparency is likely to increase public cynicism.

A widely respected honours system exists in Wales. The Gorsedd of Bards admits members on the basis of excellence demonstrated by examinations or awarded on the basis of merit in service to the nation of Wales. The awards enjoy public trust because of their history of recognising fairly achievements from all sectors of Welsh life from the sporting arenas to the political assemblies.

The unwelcome creation of a new body, the Parliamentary and Political Service Honours Committee to distribute honours to MPs and parliamentary staff has been treated with widespread derision. EDM 137 reads:- That this House believes that the highest honour attainable by a democrat in this country is achieving the office of Member of Parliament; is surprised that without the knowledge or consent of Parliament, a committee has been set up to give four knighthoods and 21 minor honours to hon. Members and other political staff; further believes that this act of self-aggrandisement will be regarded with contempt by the public; and asserts that the committee's dominant membership of chief whips and other establishment figures brands it as an unwelcome instrument of patronage that will expose recipients of awards to ridicule.

Twenty five years ago, all Conservative MPs were automatically given knighthood for completing 20 years of services. The rare exception was the MP Robert Adley who was a distinguished but independently minded MP. No Labour MP then accepted honours. The automatic awards were a useful tool for maintaining obedience of backbench MPs to the demand of the Executive. The re-introduction of parliamentary awards is a retrograde step. We urge the abolition of the Parliamentary Honours Committee.

It was claimed that honours were not given to those who had simply ‘given a load of money to a charity’. Those who give money unselfishly to charity are anonymous. Awards go only to those who allow that charity giving to be made public. The convincing evidence is that large gifts to charity are linked with awards. If it was not so, there were be no potency in the claim that rewarding philanthropists encourages more donations – presumably in the hope of buying gongs. The impression that honours can be bought is a widespread and damaging perception.

The present decisions on awards are made by individuals who are not representative of society as a whole. Lord Lieutenants and the Honours Committees should be replaced by independent committees governed by rules set by a cross-party parliamentary committee, independent of Government control. Our predecessor Committee recommended that an Honours Committee should be established following the precedent of the Electoral Commission. This would be a sensible reform and would lead to better informed decisions through improved accountability and transparency.

December 26, 2016

The sounds and images of this great film have invaded my thoughts and colonised my brain since I saw it in November. Without enthusiasm and full of misgivings I went to a pre-release viewing of the film Notes on blindness: into Darkness.

The dread of blanket of blackness descending on our heads is a universal fear. In direct vivid language a gifted writer and theologian John Hull describes his total loss of sight. The last fleeting powers of Hull's sight were destroyed by clumsy surgery. Just before the birth of first child, he is plunged into a world of fear and wonder from which there is no escape.

Listening to sounds in a park reveals a hierarchy of noises calibrated by distance. Rain is a complex orchestra of subtlety and depth, single drops, gushing rivulets, tamping downpours, pattering dribbles, rattling on dustbins.. An organ playing loudly in a cathedral is a thrilling, throbbing sensation of trembling pews and blood tingling vibrations. Blindness was not desired or requested by Hull but he recognises is as 'a gift' that adds richness to the human existence.

Fear and despair overwhelm frequently. In a strange house a child screams. The blind father thrashes around in a hopeless agonised search for the whereabouts of his distressed child. His sighted wife comforts the child and deepens the father's sadness of his helplessness.

Torments come in a dream when sight is apparently restored and the face is 'seen' of a child born after total blindness took hold. The memories of still photographs are better recalled in the world of blackness than memories of events of movement.

The film is an experience that falls just short of pain but ultimately illuminates with the discovery of a life beyond sight.

****************************

Thanks to the British Film Institute for facilitating the making of the film and hosting the viewing,

December 25, 2016

Optimism has kept me going. I am always expecting beneficial reforms and retreats from the greed, ignorance and stupidity that dominate political life.

A turbulent year ended well for Newport's Labour family. Our new heroine Jayne Bryant scored a brilliant victory in May and has established herself as a popular, hard-working Assembly Member, respected by all. It was satisfying to receive the award of Welsh MP of the Year from a group of journalists who know what is going on in Welsh Politics. A mixed blessing was that I named yesterday by Professor Crowley as the most rebellious MP of 2015. Phillip added extra interest in June by claiming that I was the oldest frontbencher since Gladstone. Some disagree but I’m not arguing.

From top rebel to Shadow Leader of the House is a significant metamorphosis. The Independent of the 22nd of December did a playful article about rebels. Kindly they printed my full response.

"Not so much rebellious but a faithful follower of my backbenchers' ten commandments. Number four says 'Attack your opponents only when they are wrong' while respecting number seven which is 'Honour your party and extend their horizons'. I have been less tribal with the SNP initiatives because working in harmony with them when they are correct does extend Labour's horizons and is the only way to defeat the Tories".

The commandments included in my book on How to be an MP. It is still being sold. The new LibDem MP told me her husband had bought her a copy. I assured her that it guaranteed her future success.

2017 is a fearful prospect with world power in the hands of lowest common denominator of US opinion Trump, ex KGB chief Putin building up the Russian Federation as a world super-power and joker Boris here, trivial, wayward and rash. Politics will be suffocated by Brexit changes that seek to unpick the progressive reforms of the past 50 years. Mercifully here we have the Senedd and the Labour Local Authority to shield us from the worst excesses of crude Brexitism.

The local elections in Newport are likely to repeat the Welsh success for Labour of last May. The other parties in Newport are all in decline. The Tories are demoralized by the defeat in the Assembly election when they had high hopes of victory. They even brought Boris down to the Ridgeway but it did not help. UKIP are draining support and this one trick party now lacks potency. Their Assembly antics are rightly ridiculed.

Labour has a bonus in a fresh City Labour Leader with an energetic new approach. The Welsh Labour leader Carwyn Jones is a trusted and popular personality. The turnaround of the City’s image and sense of well-being which Friar’s Walk has generated in the past year is infectious. As with all elections, nothing is ever certain. The voters are in a volatile mood. Labour’s Newport election machines will be in top gear for fresh successes and working hard to win every possible vote in May 2017. There is deep-seated loyalty to Labour in Newport which was displayed in all elections over the past five years. As an optimist I hope that will continue even in these turbulent times.

December 22, 2016

1 The deliberate deception of Parliament By Dr Glen Rangwala Trinity College, University of Cambridge

Summary From late 2001 to March 2003, Tony Blair made three inter-related statements repeatedly to the House of Commons: (1) that no decision had been taken to use military force against Iraq; (2) that military action could be avoided by Iraq’s disarmament of its nuclear, chemical and biological weapons; and (3) that regime change was not the goal of government policy. The Report of the Iraq Inquiry, published on 6th July 2016 – the Chilcot report – has demonstrated conclusively and authoritatively that each of these three statements was untrue, and that its falsity was known to Mr Blair. The evidence presented in the Chilcot report shows that Mr Blair was deliberately misleading the House of Commons. According to Erskine May (24th edition, p.254), making a deliberately misleading statement in the House constitutes a grave contempt of Parliament.

Mr Blair backed up his claims about the need for Iraq’s disarmament by asserting (4) that there was conclusive evidence of Iraq’s possession of ‘weapons of mass destruction’, and (5) that these weapons were a threat to the UK’s national security. On both points, these statements contradicted the intelligence assessments that had been put to Mr Blair. He did not address the threats that would arise to the UK in the event of an invasion despite repeated intelligence assessments put to him concerning this matter, and direct questions about these threats. Mr Blair knowingly endangered UK domestic security through his actions, and his statements about threats were in direct contravention of the July 2001 Ministerial Code, which required ministers to “be as open as possible with Parliament”.

Finally, Mr Blair stated in March 2003 that (6) diplomacy had been exhausted in seeking to avoid an invasion of Iraq. This is shown to be untrue by the Chilcot report, and again involved Mr Blair deliberately misleading the House of Commons. This report summarises the evidence from the Chilcot report and the accompanying documents that statements (1)-(6) made by Mr Blair were either knowingly untrue or involved serious omissions which misled the House of Commons. Statements quoted from Mr Blair are in boxes on the left, while quoted material from and evaluations in the Chilcot report are in boxes on the right. 1. The decision to use military force In the period from 6th March 2002 to 14 March 2003, Mr Blair faced numerous oral and written questions in the House of Commons about the possibility of the use of force against Iraq. The response given each time was that “no decision has been taken” about action against Iraq. In fact, the Chilcot report reveals that from December 2001, Mr Blair had been proposing an invasion of Iraq to the US administration, had been offering UK military support for that invasion, and – as he became convinced over mid-2002 that the US would lead an invasion – had given his personal commitment to support US action. It is impossible to view this as anything other than a “decision” to use military force. Mr Blair began to use this phrase to the Commons from March 2002: “I totally understand why there is a lot of speculation about action on Iraq, but, as I constantly repeat, no decision has been taken at all in respect of any action. There is a very clear view, which must be right, that Iraq should come back into compliance with UN Security Council resolutions and that it certainly posed a threat on weapons of mass destruction, but no decision-making process has taken place as yet.” - Tony Blair, Prime Minister’s Questions, 18 March 2002

"In late March 2003, I wrote to Tony about Iraq:

Our involvement in Bush’s war will increase the likelihood of terrorist attacks. Attacking a Muslim state without achieving a fair settlement of the Palestine–Israeli situation is an affront to Muslims, from our local mosques to the far-flung corners of the world. A pre-emptive attack of the kind we have made on Iraq will only deepen the sense of grievance among Muslims that the Western/Christian/Jewish world is out to oppress them. This will provide a propaganda victory to Osama Bin Laden and can only increase his support and the likelihood of more acts of terrorism."

Paul Flynn MP

He continued to use it whenever asked a question in the House of Commons about the potential for military action in Iraq: “I reiterate what I said a moment ago: we have not yet reached the point of decision, and should we do so, of course the House will be properly consulted. People are perfectly entitled to express their views on these issues. But my view remains that weapons of mass destruction are a serious threat, and it is important that we deal with it. How we deal with it is an open question. If decisions are taken, there will be ample opportunity for the House to be consulted.” - Tony Blair, Prime Minister’s Questions, 24 July 2002 In contrast to what Mr Blair was telling the House of Commons, his letter to President Bush in December 2001 proposed both a military strategy against Iraq and a political strategy for winning over international public opinion to it: “at present international opinion would be reluctant, outside the US/UK, to support immediate military action though, for sure, people want to be rid of Saddam. So we need a strategy for regime change that builds over time. I suggest: (i) Softening up first. We draw attention to Saddam’s breach of UN resolutions; we say regime change is ‘desirable’ […]; (v) We mount covert operations with people and groups with the ability to topple Saddam; (vi) When the rebellion finally occurs we back it militarily.” - Mr Blair’s letter to President Bush, 4 December 2001. Underlining in Blair’s original text Mr Blair was specifically asked about commitments made to the US, in a question from Elfyn Llwyd: “Has he [the Prime Minister] given the United States any commitment that the United Kingdom would support unilateral action against Iraq?” He responded: “As I said a moment ago, we are not at the stage of taking decisions about military action. However, it is important to recognise that in the event of the UN's will not being complied with we must be prepared to take that action. We are not at the point of decision yet, but no one should be in any doubt that it is important to express very clearly that should the UN's will not be resolved through weapons inspections and monitoring, it has to be resolved in a different way.” - Tony Blair, to the House of Commons, 24 September 2002 Mr Blair did not answer the question about commitments made to the US, but the record of his communication with the US administration shows him making exactly those commitments to the US Vice-President six months earlier, and again in a note to President Bush two months before facing the question in the Commons. He also gave advice about how to win around public opinion to military action, and proposing a timetable for military action: “it was highly desirable to get rid of Saddam … the UK would help [the US] as long as there was a clever strategy, and one that worked.

This meant building up the case against Saddam carefully and intelligently. … As far as military strategy was concerned, we must ensure that our forces were equipped to finish the job quickly and successfully.” - Mr Blair to US Vice-President Cheney, on 11 March 2002 “I will be with you, whatever. […] Here is what could bring [public] opinion round. (1) The UN. We don’t want to be mucked around by Saddam over this, and the danger is he drags us into negotiation. But we need, as with Afghanistan and the ultimatum to the Taliban, to encapsulate our casus belli in some defining way. This is certainly the simplest. We could, in October as the build-up starts, state that he must let the inspectors back in unconditionally and do so now, ie set a 7-day deadline. [..] he [Saddam] probably would screw it up and not meet the deadline, and if he came forward after the deadline, we would just refuse to deal. (2) The Evidence. [..] If we recapitulate all the WMD evidence; add his attempts to secure nuclear capability; and, as seems possible, add on Al Qaida link, it will be hugely persuasive over here. […] We would support in any way we can. On timing, we could start building up after the break. A strike date could be Jan/Feb next year. But the crucial issue is not when, but how. - Mr Blair’s note to President Bush, 28 July 2002. Underlining in Blair’s original text. The same approach of denying any decision had been taken was maintained all the way through to March 2003: “No decision to launch military action against Iraq has been taken.”

4 - Tony Blair, written answer to a Parliamentary question, 11 March 2003 By this point, Mr Blair had already planned out a timetable for the invasion of Iraq with President Bush. The decision to deploy ground troops was taken on 17 January 2003, without discussion in Cabinet or notification to Parliament (The Chilcot Report, Volume 5, section 6.2, pp.413-427). On 24 January 2003, he sent President Bush a note and suggested in the subsequent conversation commencing the invasion in late March: “Mr Blair argued that ‘we needed to look reasonable’ and that the deadline for the start of military action should be delayed to the end of March.” - The Chilcot Report, Volume 3 (section 3.6), p.118, on the conversation between Bush and Blair on 24 January 2003 When Mr Blair met President Bush on 31 January, the joint commitment for military action was already clear, and the issue for the UK was merely whether they would be able to organise another Security Council Resolution to legitimise a decision that had already been taken: “When Mr Blair met President Bush on 31 January it was clear that the window of opportunity before the US took military action would be very short. The military campaign could begin ‘around 10 March’. President Bush agreed to support a second resolution to help Mr Blair. Mr Blair confirmed that he was ‘solidly with the President and ready to do whatever it took to disarm Saddam’ Hussein.” - The Chilcot Report, Volume 3 (section 3.6), p.163 While Mr Blair was telling the House of Commons that no decision had been taken to launch military action, he had already committed UK troops to support the US, leaving only discussions of strategy and the timetable to be arranged. 2. Iraq’s disarmament and the need for force Mr Blair repeatedly told the House of Commons that the reason why military action was a possibility was because of Iraq’s possession of chemical and biological weapons, and its development of nuclear weapons. He assured the Commons that if Iraq were to renounce these weapons, there would be no need for military action. By contrast, the Chilcot report reveals that weapons inspections for Iraq’s disarmament were no more than a public relations strategy, chosen because it was believed the Iraqi leader would trip up in verifying compliance, and thus providing the pretext for military action.

December 21, 2016

A week ago, the South Wales Argus management received the letter below from me. So far there has been no response. A newspaper that reports all local job losses and threats of losses is strangely silent. The letter read:-

Members of the Argus staff, who are constituents of mine. have complained to me about the proposed loss of jobs at the Argus in Newport. I am informed that the hub of sub-editors here is to be drastically reduced. My understanding was that Newport was benefiting from 60 sub-editing jobs here, partly to compensate for the ending of printing in Newport after it was moved elsewhere.

One correspondent has remarked that the Argus received an accolade from the Welsh Government as a good employer. The loss of any jobs is a blow to the city. The reduction in these highly skilled jobs is especially damaging to those employed and the hopes of future employees. I hope that any decision to reduce jobs will be reversed.

There has been no news item that I have seen that records the conventional newspaper pleas to defend local jobs. It's strange that they are blind to a substantial news item that is happening in their own office. There has been a constant haemorrhage of jobs from the paper over the years. They sold their car park for housing and the overflow from the tiny space they have left now clogs local streets. Interesting local story-but not in the local paper.

Critical of all-except themselves.

Parliament on the defensive

Parliament is also oddly muted about accusations made against us in the Chilcot Report.

Several committees are studying the report and a debate was overwhelmed by those seeking to justify one of the worst blunders in our history. 179 British soldiers lost their lives in war that we should have avoided. Their loved ones suffer a wound of grief that will never heal. Uncounted Iraqis died. The legacy of the war is a chaotic Middle East and a world divided between Christians and Muslims. I warned Tony Blair that this would happen in a letter to him in March 2003 which I published on this blog at the time.

Parliamentary committees have a proud reputation for rigorous scrutiny which we used to criticise outside bodies when they err. We must apply the same standards to our own mistakes. It was not just Tony Blair who was gagging for war in 2003. It was IDS the Tory leader plus all but a half a dozen Tory MPs. The three main committees of Foreign Affairs, Intelligence and Defence were all cheerleaders for war. They must now objectively judge Chilcot's findings in order that we became better informed and avoid future wars of political vanity.

Time of generosity

Even in these dark days our hearts are lifted by Christmas. Hearing a favourite carol, getting a card from a beloved friend or seeing a colourful Christmas display rekindles the warmth of our Christmas spirits.

Now is the time to dwell on the fine things of life and value our good fortune living in a place of peace, harmony and order. While much needs to be done to maintain fairness between generations we still have an open society that has been transformed for the better in the past hundred years.

In my lucky life I meet thousands of local people. While we have our differences, there is warm solidarity on the major occasions of war memorial events, sporting occasions, religious gatherings and switching on the Christmas lights. We are rightly proud of younger generations. Brilliant local teachers are nurturing a new generation of children who will achieve much and do Newport proud. My generation enjoys economic security rare in the past but many lives are blighted by loneliness and isolation. We can all help there.

Christmas is at its best in the numberless acts of kindness and unselfishness that will be abundant in Newport. Happy Christmas. Nadolig Llawen.

PM's answer?

On Monday this week I asked the PM about her Brexit Paln.

Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)Will Brexit deliver what the Prime Minister’s three Brexiteer Ministers promised in the referendum and what the majority of voters supported—namely a £350 million a week payment to the national health service? Or will we get a bill of £50 billion for which nobody voted?

The Prime MinisterWhen we leave the EU, we will be delivering on what my colleagues who campaigned to leave the European Union campaigned for and what the people voted for: the UK no longer being a member of the EU and therefore being able to take control of how taxpayers’ money is spent, how our laws are made and our immigration.

Prison Minister in La-La Land.

Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)It took three written parliamentary questions from me to get the Government to confess that only one prison in Britain was free of illegal drug use. It took a fourth question to get the information that that prison had no prisoners because it had closed down. This is symptomatic of the Government being in denial of the corruption and chaos in our prison service. Have not the Government’s policies for the past six years been, like the Minister’s statement today, evidence-free and ignorance-rich?

Elizabeth TrussI congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his assiduousness in asking parliamentary questions, which have elicited an answer. If he reads the “Prison safety and reform” White Paper, he will see there is a whole section on how we deal with the issue of drugs: testing offenders on entry and exit, and making sure that governors are held accountable for getting people off drugs. That is the way we are going to crack this problem.

A free press?

Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)We are all concerned that next year the leader of the free world will be a blunt-brained snake oil salesman who was elected by a prostituted press to whom truth is secondary and sometimes entirely irrelevant. Will the Secretary of State bear in mind the very strong views that we need to maintain in this country those qualities of balance and fairness that we have imposed on the BBC by statute? Will she bear in mind the grave danger of a prostituted press?

Karen BradleyI do not think anyone is in doubt about the hon. Gentleman’s views.

Christian MathesonWe are about yours.

Mr SpeakerWe are grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his sedentary chunter.

From the Independent 22nd December

The most frequent rebel on the Labour side, the MP for Newport West Paul Flynn outlined his 'backbenchers' ten commandments':

"Not so much rebellious but a faithful follower of my backbenchers' ten commandments. Number four says 'Attack your opponents only when they are wrong' while respecting number seven which is 'Honour your party and extend their horizons'. I have been less tribal with the SNP initiatives because working in harmony with them when they are correct does extend Labour's horizons and is the only way to defeat the Tories".

December 07, 2016

No award has given me greater satisfaction than the one I had last night as the Welsh MP of the Year from ITV Wales.

Politician appreciate signs of recognition from independent sources. I have been very grateful for past awards of Backbencher of the Year and Welsh Politician of the year. But 2016 has been more tumultuous and difficult 12 months than any of my previous 29 years as MP. I have been furiously scribbling down the dramas of that past six months. The appeal of last night's award was the perceptively accurate account of the unity that I have been trying to create in the Parliamentary Labour Party. So factionalised have we become as a party, the persuasive power of unity is disregarded.

Generously the judges said they recognised, what they described as my “impressive performance in two frontbench roles and in particular by the power and statesmanship of the message of party unity” in my speech at the Labour Conference last September.

The chairman of the judges Dr. Denis Balsom kindly said that: “He did the jobs – Shadow Secretary of State for Wales and Shadow Leader of the Commons with wit and enthusiasm, and he delivered a powerful warning to the Labour Conference about the consequences of disunity.”

Bliss. That is exactly what I was trying to do. At last night's ceremony ITV Wales played clips of my first speech to party conference since 1981 and my first comments as Shadow Leader of the House as the oldest frontbench spokesman since Gladstone. The frontbench jobs were fun, harrowing, fulfilling, exhausting and richly educational. I thank my staff for keeping me buoyant and relatively sane. Daunting for me but terrifying for them. Cathy woke up on a Thursday to discover that as born and bred Ulster woman, who had graduated in Scotland, she had been transformed into Labour's Political Adviser on Welsh Affairs. She coped magnificently. I also thanked my beloved Sam plus Matthew and Rhys who were also on my valiant life support team. What a wonderful chance to thank them at this exciting event.

In spite of everything politics worldwide is in a dangerous ugly mess. I could not resist making the serious point to the captive audience that we all should feel alarmed and work to halt the rot.

“When astrology is equated to science, when a blunt-brained snake oil salesman is the most powerful politician in the world, when parliamentary democracy is overruled by the tyranny of advisory referendums manipulated by tabloid moronocracy and lobbyists who tell the most convincing lies, when laws are prejudice-rich and evidence-free, it’s time for a renaissance of reason, political intelligence, truth and integrity."

Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)A 20-year-old constituent of mine made an indelible and unforgettable impression on my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) and me with the tragic story of his half a dozen abortive attempts to get the organ transplant that he desperately needed. Six months later, I attended his funeral. He died because of a lack of donors. Yesterday, the Welsh Government announced that, as a result of their pioneering and courageous legislation on the new law of presumed consent, 39 patients in Wales had had organ transplants. When can we get the Government to accelerate in this House a law that will allow the same process and the same advantage to be enjoyed throughout the rest of the United Kingdom?

Mr LidingtonI will certainly make sure that that point, which the hon. Gentleman and others have made, is considered by the Health Secretary and his team. Very many of us, myself included, know friends or family members who have literally been given a new lease of life through a successful transplant. All healthy adults need to consider whether they should make arrangements to make clear their wishes in advance of their death. It is also important that our medical professionals are trained in how to make an approach to families at a critically emotional moment when a relative is at the point of death, to ask them sensitively to consider whether to give consent for a transplant to take place.

The links below contain further information on the moving story of the constituent I spoke of today, Matthew Lammas.

September 23rd 2012

Tragedy of failing system

Shocked and upset to hear the news that a constituent passed away yesterday. I gave an account of his situation in a parliamentary debate last November. I received the sad news on Facebook today. His death is a reminder of the need for an urgent reform of the organ donor system that imposed additional suffering on the seriously ill and their relatives.

Paul Flynn: We must get away from what we are hearing from prattling prelates and procrastinating politicians and look at the real issue. We cannot talk about a system that is working well, as was suggested this morning, when 1,000 families were bereaved last year in the UK and 50 families were bereaved in Wales. I will not talk about one family in my constituency where a young woman died waiting for an organ transplant because it is too heartbreaking a story, but I want to say something about the reality. Despite all the fine theories and words ahead, what is happening to real people in our constituencies?

Some of us listened to the testimony of Matt Lammas and his mother when they came to Parliament a month ago. It was a dreadful story of suffering that moved us all. Matt and his brother were born with congenital heart defects and they both had pacemakers. Matt was suddenly getting a great deal of pain and discomfort and was taken to the hospital, where the diagnosis was a sombre one. His heart was growing and he would eventually die. He was told that on a scale of one to 10 his chance of surviving was at 9.9, and the family prepared for his death. They were told that a heart transplant was a possibility, so they arranged for him to go to Birmingham’s Queen Elizabeth hospital, where he had a series of assessments. When the doctor told them that he would have to have a transplant, his mother said:

“Matt and I stared at each other it was so surreal. Had we both heard the same thing? We didn’t talk. Matt may have wept, I can’t be sure. I felt numb and could only think about my son who I had just been told was dying.

The sister came back in. ‘Had you been expecting to hear that?’ she asked gently. ‘No!’ we said together. It was the first thing we had said since hearing the awful news. ‘I thought he would need a new pacemaker.’ I said.”

Jessica Morden, Matt Lammas, PF (October 2011)

She told the story—which some hon. Members will have heard—of the dreadful things that happened from then on. There were false alarms; a call from Birmingham came at 2 o’clock in the morning. They prepared themselves and started to drive up the motorway, only to be told when they were halfway there that the heart was not suitable. There were many other false alarms along the way. Eventually the transplant did occur—I find it difficult to read the whole story so I will cut it short. The family went through agony as the young man approached death. He was fitted with a device that would keep him alive for 28 days, but death was a certainty at the end. By good fortune—not from the wisdom of politicians or prelates—he survived. He is at home now and has a life expectancy of five years.

Another constituent of mine, a young woman the same age as Matt, died last year because there was no heart available. I believe we must say—because the overwhelming evidence is there in spite of what the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire said this morning—that the weight of the medical evidence shows the best way forward, and that is the decision that the Welsh Assembly is about to take. For goodness sake, instead of going along as we are—particularly today—serving the few rather than the many and talking about our various political differences, let us realise that this is an area in which we politicians can save lives and lift the burden of anxiety from families waiting for organs. We know that all of the evidence—the fair evidence, not the procrastinating evidence we have heard this morning—shows that there will be more organs available. For goodness sake, let us allow the Welsh Assembly a free run to get on with it and lead the country as it has in the past with other reforms. We hope that England and the rest of the United Kingdom will follow suit when the reforms produced by the Welsh Assembly are proved to be a great success.